Physicians Assistant yelling “HELP ME” while stealing a CitiBike ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems like everyone is just glossing over the fact that one of the guys in the group had the decency to give up his e-bike to the PA.

It was unclear if he gave it up or he was just sitting on it while on his phone trying to stay out of the situation. It looked like he was just sitting on it, maybe getting ready to rent it. The issue isn't that guy, the issue is the guy in the video and the one recording it and who ever is saying terrible things to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The witch hunt on here against these young men isn't all that different from the start of the witchhunt online against the woman. Neither looks good.

There isn’t a witch-hunt. There is one person trolling against your trolling. Uoure pushing and pushing because the PA has advanced evidence supporting here, so you’re throwing dirt and finding ambiguity where there isn’t any (eg, the bike number) because you want to bait someone here into saying something awful so you can run to Jeff. I don’t think it’ll work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the video linked on page 1 deleted form Twitter?

Her lawyer has said they are going after media sources that fanned the flames and led to the witchhunt of her and her family. Many accounts likely want nothing to tie them to the video.

Her lawyer also said this was a misunderstanding about the bikes and the woman holds no ill will at all towards the young men (and he emphasized the word young).

The lawyer said he and her legal team have 3 goals

1) clear her name
2) ensure her employer exonerates her and there are no employment related effects
3) go after media who made this a disaster (his word)

The woman is currently in hiding with her family due to the death threats and doxxing that took place.

I am glad it appears her name will be cleared, and sad that she has to go though it, pregnant, no less!
So why did the young men want her off the bike? They wanted to rent that particular bike that was already paid for by her? Seems like there were other bikes around?
Were they just looking for an altercation they could then put online?

The lawyer says it was "simple" that she was tired and just wanted to go home. That the specific bike was unattended and so she mounted the bike and then paid for the bike and that as she was doing this individuals were telling her that they had paid for the bike and that this was their bike. She then unlocked it and rolled it back and one of the individuals pulled it back into the dock and that is when the video starts. Given the lawyer's use of the words 'misunderstanding" and "young" it seems like the young men thought they had paid for the bike - maybe they were renting a few and so hadn't each sat on one yet - who knows.

Then, they should have physically been on the bikes. They should be charged with assault as they pushed the bike back into the dock with her on it.

There is no need for charges. Neither the lawyer or his client felt this was anything other than a misunderstanding. The client does not want an investigation or charges and according to the lawyer his client "wishes them the best" as this was just a "mistake, a misunderstanding" and she doesn't want any of the same "scrutiny or misery" that has been applied to her to go towards these young men.

Why are they getting a free pass? The man grabbed a woman on a bike and was basically assaulting her. The lawyer is trying to play nice to diffuse the situation but these men need to be identified and get a copy of the full video to see the entire situation as well as receipts from the man showing he rented it. He probably wanted the bike, maybe was hanging out but didn't reserve/take it yet, then decided when she got on it he wanted it and was going to do what it took to get the bike. There is no excuse for him putting his hands on her.

Well, maybe there was a legitimate dispute over the bike. I think the real point is, why post the video? Posting the video was an act of defamation that I think they should NOT get a free pass for. They need to answer for that. If the PA decides to sue the videographer, I'll support that with a donation.

Seriously, not even an apology from them?

If they are dragging her through the mud, ruining her life, any decent man will step up and discuss the situation and show their receipt that it was already rented. It sounds like she paid for it, he decided he wanted that bike. The question is can you rent the bike via reservation, and some are saying no. So, maybe he was eying it, she rented it while walking out, she got to it before him and he was made as he wanted it. But, why confront her and just find another bike?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The witch hunt on here against these young men isn't all that different from the start of the witchhunt online against the woman. Neither looks good.

Well, except they aren’t identified and being forced into hiding. But sure, other than that exactly the same. 🙄🙄

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The witch hunt on here against these young men isn't all that different from the start of the witchhunt online against the woman. Neither looks good.

There isn’t a witch-hunt. There is one person trolling against your trolling. Uoure pushing and pushing because the PA has advanced evidence supporting here, so you’re throwing dirt and finding ambiguity where there isn’t any (eg, the bike number) because you want to bait someone here into saying something awful so you can run to Jeff. I don’t think it’ll work.

There should be a witch-hunt for these men and they should be publicly identified like they publicly identified her. Be man enough to say what happened and account for your actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the video linked on page 1 deleted form Twitter?

Her lawyer has said they are going after media sources that fanned the flames and led to the witchhunt of her and her family. Many accounts likely want nothing to tie them to the video.

Her lawyer also said this was a misunderstanding about the bikes and the woman holds no ill will at all towards the young men (and he emphasized the word young).

The lawyer said he and her legal team have 3 goals

1) clear her name
2) ensure her employer exonerates her and there are no employment related effects
3) go after media who made this a disaster (his word)

The woman is currently in hiding with her family due to the death threats and doxxing that took place.

I am glad it appears her name will be cleared, and sad that she has to go though it, pregnant, no less!
So why did the young men want her off the bike? They wanted to rent that particular bike that was already paid for by her? Seems like there were other bikes around?
Were they just looking for an altercation they could then put online?

The lawyer says it was "simple" that she was tired and just wanted to go home. That the specific bike was unattended and so she mounted the bike and then paid for the bike and that as she was doing this individuals were telling her that they had paid for the bike and that this was their bike. She then unlocked it and rolled it back and one of the individuals pulled it back into the dock and that is when the video starts. Given the lawyer's use of the words 'misunderstanding" and "young" it seems like the young men thought they had paid for the bike - maybe they were renting a few and so hadn't each sat on one yet - who knows.

Then, they should have physically been on the bikes. They should be charged with assault as they pushed the bike back into the dock with her on it.

There is no need for charges. Neither the lawyer or his client felt this was anything other than a misunderstanding. The client does not want an investigation or charges and according to the lawyer his client "wishes them the best" as this was just a "mistake, a misunderstanding" and she doesn't want any of the same "scrutiny or misery" that has been applied to her to go towards these young men.

Why are they getting a free pass? The man grabbed a woman on a bike and was basically assaulting her. The lawyer is trying to play nice to diffuse the situation but these men need to be identified and get a copy of the full video to see the entire situation as well as receipts from the man showing he rented it. He probably wanted the bike, maybe was hanging out but didn't reserve/take it yet, then decided when she got on it he wanted it and was going to do what it took to get the bike. There is no excuse for him putting his hands on her.

Well, maybe there was a legitimate dispute over the bike. I think the real point is, why post the video? Posting the video was an act of defamation that I think they should NOT get a free pass for. They need to answer for that. If the PA decides to sue the videographer, I'll support that with a donation.

Seriously, not even an apology from them?

If they are dragging her through the mud, ruining her life, any decent man will step up and discuss the situation and show their receipt that it was already rented. It sounds like she paid for it, he decided he wanted that bike. The question is can you rent the bike via reservation, and some are saying no. So, maybe he was eying it, she rented it while walking out, she got to it before him and he was made as he wanted it. But, why confront her and just find another bike?

Because it wasn't about the bike. It was about demonstrating their power over her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The witch hunt on here against these young men isn't all that different from the start of the witchhunt online against the woman. Neither looks good.

There isn’t a witch-hunt. There is one person trolling against your trolling. Uoure pushing and pushing because the PA has advanced evidence supporting here, so you’re throwing dirt and finding ambiguity where there isn’t any (eg, the bike number) because you want to bait someone here into saying something awful so you can run to Jeff. I don’t think it’ll work.

There should be a witch-hunt for these men and they should be publicly identified like they publicly identified her. Be man enough to say what happened and account for your actions.

I agree.

They could have hired their own attorney as well, but I guess we’ll know by next week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The witch hunt on here against these young men isn't all that different from the start of the witchhunt online against the woman. Neither looks good.

Well, except they aren’t identified and being forced into hiding. But sure, other than that exactly the same. 🙄🙄

I mean really. Asking for them to come forward and provide receipts is nothing like what happened to that woman. Nothing.

[Anonymous]

These men did not post the video. They didn't publicly identify her. And again her lawyer said these were "young men" and he emphasized young men so I am guessing they were minors.

Maybe they sent it to one friend or posted it on one of their social media pages with 10 followers. Maybe they hashtagged it Karen and one of the many sites that troll for viral videos came across it.

The account that posted the video and started the spin about what happened is https://twitter.com/Imposter_Edits. He is still posting about it but has changed his tune.

The young men are likely in hiding as well. Like on here I am sure there are many others desperate to identify them and drag them into similar hate filled online mobs that went after the women. Their lives would be in danger if they were to be identified and the woman involved has said via her lawyer she does not want them going through what she is going through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The witch hunt on here against these young men isn't all that different from the start of the witchhunt online against the woman. Neither looks good.

Well, except they aren’t identified and being forced into hiding. But sure, other than that exactly the same. 🙄🙄

I mean really. Asking for them to come forward and provide receipts is nothing like what happened to that woman. Nothing.

"That's different!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These men did not post the video. They didn't publicly identify her. And again her lawyer said these were "young men" and he emphasized young men so I am guessing they were minors.

Maybe they sent it to one friend or posted it on one of their social media pages with 10 followers. Maybe they hashtagged it Karen and one of the many sites that troll for viral videos came across it.

The account that posted the video and started the spin about what happened is https://twitter.com/Imposter_Edits. He is still posting about it but has changed his tune.

The young men are likely in hiding as well. Like on here I am sure there are many others desperate to identify them and drag them into similar hate filled online mobs that went after the women. Their lives would be in danger if they were to be identified and the woman involved has said via her lawyer she does not want them going through what she is going through.

I visited that guy’s Twitter and this is what he posted:

“It turns out City Bike allows you to rent a bike by entering a serial number directly into the app. I went through the entire process myself and the only thing stopping me from renting that same bike was geolocation. Anyone in the NY area could produce a canceled receipt for that exact bike from their couch without leaving home.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These men did not post the video. They didn't publicly identify her. And again her lawyer said these were "young men" and he emphasized young men so I am guessing they were minors.

Maybe they sent it to one friend or posted it on one of their social media pages with 10 followers. Maybe they hashtagged it Karen and one of the many sites that troll for viral videos came across it.

The account that posted the video and started the spin about what happened is https://twitter.com/Imposter_Edits. He is still posting about it but has changed his tune.

The young men are likely in hiding as well. Like on here I am sure there are many others desperate to identify them and drag them into similar hate filled online mobs that went after the women. Their lives would be in danger if they were to be identified and the woman involved has said via her lawyer she does not want them going through what she is going through.

I visited that guy’s Twitter and this is what he posted:

“It turns out City Bike allows you to rent a bike by entering a serial number directly into the app. I went through the entire process myself and the only thing stopping me from renting that same bike was geolocation. Anyone in the NY area could produce a canceled receipt for that exact bike from their couch without leaving home.”

This is flatly not true. I’ve used the app many times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These men did not post the video. They didn't publicly identify her. And again her lawyer said these were "young men" and he emphasized young men so I am guessing they were minors.

Maybe they sent it to one friend or posted it on one of their social media pages with 10 followers. Maybe they hashtagged it Karen and one of the many sites that troll for viral videos came across it.

The account that posted the video and started the spin about what happened is https://twitter.com/Imposter_Edits. He is still posting about it but has changed his tune.

The young men are likely in hiding as well. Like on here I am sure there are many others desperate to identify them and drag them into similar hate filled online mobs that went after the women. Their lives would be in danger if they were to be identified and the woman involved has said via her lawyer she does not want them going through what she is going through.

I visited that guy’s Twitter and this is what he posted:

“It turns out City Bike allows you to rent a bike by entering a serial number directly into the app. I went through the entire process myself and the only thing stopping me from renting that same bike was geolocation. Anyone in the NY area could produce a canceled receipt for that exact bike from their couch without leaving home.”

So is that admitting he was wrong? As someone who has never rented one of these bikes, I'm confused by the whole thing.

I was a poster who really believed she was in the wrong after watching the video. Her behavior did not seem to match anything I've seen from victims or experienced as a victim myself. Obviously I was wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These men did not post the video. They didn't publicly identify her. And again her lawyer said these were "young men" and he emphasized young men so I am guessing they were minors.

Maybe they sent it to one friend or posted it on one of their social media pages with 10 followers. Maybe they hashtagged it Karen and one of the many sites that troll for viral videos came across it.

The account that posted the video and started the spin about what happened is https://twitter.com/Imposter_Edits. He is still posting about it but has changed his tune.

The young men are likely in hiding as well. Like on here I am sure there are many others desperate to identify them and drag them into similar hate filled online mobs that went after the women. Their lives would be in danger if they were to be identified and the woman involved has said via her lawyer she does not want them going through what she is going through.

I visited that guy’s Twitter and this is what he posted:

“It turns out City Bike allows you to rent a bike by entering a serial number directly into the app. I went through the entire process myself and the only thing stopping me from renting that same bike was geolocation. Anyone in the NY area could produce a canceled receipt for that exact bike from their couch without leaving home.”

So is that admitting he was wrong? As someone who has never rented one of these bikes, I'm confused by the whole thing.

I was a poster who really believed she was in the wrong after watching the video. Her behavior did not seem to match anything I've seen from victims or experienced as a victim myself. Obviously I was wrong.

There weren't really any victims in this. There was a misunderstanding that led to a very minor confrontation as both parties felt they were in the right. She was tired and fed up and wanted to go home and some of that came out. The boys were being rude and she realized she just needed to let it go and get on a differnet bike and go home.

Her lawyer is very professional and not a drama / lime light / dramatizing type. He is an employment lawyer, not a celebrity lawyer. There is no reason to not believe her account (told via her lawyer).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the video linked on page 1 deleted form Twitter?

Her lawyer has said they are going after media sources that fanned the flames and led to the witchhunt of her and her family. Many accounts likely want nothing to tie them to the video.

Her lawyer also said this was a misunderstanding about the bikes and the woman holds no ill will at all towards the young men (and he emphasized the word young).

The lawyer said he and her legal team have 3 goals

1) clear her name
2) ensure her employer exonerates her and there are no employment related effects
3) go after media who made this a disaster (his word)

The woman is currently in hiding with her family due to the death threats and doxxing that took place.

I am glad it appears her name will be cleared, and sad that she has to go though it, pregnant, no less!
So why did the young men want her off the bike? They wanted to rent that particular bike that was already paid for by her? Seems like there were other bikes around?
Were they just looking for an altercation they could then put online?

The lawyer says it was "simple" that she was tired and just wanted to go home. That the specific bike was unattended and so she mounted the bike and then paid for the bike and that as she was doing this individuals were telling her that they had paid for the bike and that this was their bike. She then unlocked it and rolled it back and one of the individuals pulled it back into the dock and that is when the video starts. Given the lawyer's use of the words 'misunderstanding" and "young" it seems like the young men thought they had paid for the bike - maybe they were renting a few and so hadn't each sat on one yet - who knows.

Then, they should have physically been on the bikes. They should be charged with assault as they pushed the bike back into the dock with her on it.

There is no need for charges. Neither the lawyer or his client felt this was anything other than a misunderstanding. The client does not want an investigation or charges and according to the lawyer his client "wishes them the best" as this was just a "mistake, a misunderstanding" and she doesn't want any of the same "scrutiny or misery" that has been applied to her to go towards these young men.

Why are they getting a free pass? The man grabbed a woman on a bike and was basically assaulting her. The lawyer is trying to play nice to diffuse the situation but these men need to be identified and get a copy of the full video to see the entire situation as well as receipts from the man showing he rented it. He probably wanted the bike, maybe was hanging out but didn't reserve/take it yet, then decided when she got on it he wanted it and was going to do what it took to get the bike. There is no excuse for him putting his hands on her.

Well, maybe there was a legitimate dispute over the bike. I think the real point is, why post the video? Posting the video was an act of defamation that I think they should NOT get a free pass for. They need to answer for that. If the PA decides to sue the videographer, I'll support that with a donation.

Seriously, not even an apology from them?

If they are dragging her through the mud, ruining her life, any decent man will step up and discuss the situation and show their receipt that it was already rented. It sounds like she paid for it, he decided he wanted that bike. The question is can you rent the bike via reservation, and some are saying no. So, maybe he was eying it, she rented it while walking out, she got to it before him and he was made as he wanted it. But, why confront her and just find another bike?

If it's reserved, how can someone else come and undock it? Only the reserver should be able to. She had the bike out first, that's pretty telling who got there first.